Why are the TOS movies better then the TNG movies?

[Therin of Andor]

I think the thought this was all bullshit did cross Gates Mcphaden's mind once which is why she wasn't there for a few seasons.

Gates McFadden's contract was not renewed after Season One because Gene Roddenberry and Maurice Hurley did not like the direction her character had taken.

Behind the scenes, Hurley and McFadden had a rather strained working relationship. Her complaints were seen as "whiny" and her dismissal was meant to keep the rest of the cast in line. The actors had a catch cry on stage during Season Two, "Remember Gates!", if anyone complained. (The cast mentioned this at conventions.) After Diana Muldaur (Dr Pulaski) notified Paramount she would be unavailable for the first four episodes of TNG's Season Three (to film the reunion telemovie, "The Return of McCloud"), Hurley had left, Roddenberry had had a change of heart and Rick Berman invited McFadden back. Scripts were hastily revised to reinstate Dr Crusher.

 

[plynch]

The TOS movies were used to revive what had been a canceled franchise, and they expanded on what little we had seen in the TV series. Plus, TOS only had 3 central characters so it was easy to keep that for the movies.

Also, the TOS movies were where these character finally started to show growth as characters that they never got to do in the TV series.

The TNG movies, however, couldn't handle the ensemble cast so well and TNG had pretty much run its course by then anyways. There was little purpose to the TNG movies to begin with (and Paramount made them on the cheap, too).

Frankly, the best ideas for TNG movies had already been done as TV episodes: Yesterday's Enterprise, Best of Both Worlds, heck even Descent.

Good one. Yeah, you got Spock growing a lot, obviously. Kirk struggling as a desk jockey, then feeling old, losing David, regaining Spock. That was indeed a nice expansion over the non-changing characters of 60s episodic tv. Never thought of that b4. Thanks.

 

[AggieJohn]

I think that the TOS movies took more risks and were more emotionally driven. When people say that the TNG movies, except for FC, were big made for TV movies its true. They were weak. Consider the destruction of the 2 Enterprises. I still get a little chocked up watching the NCC-1701 self-destructing. I mean it was turning death into a fighting chance to live. What was the NCC-1701 D's destruction? Poor planning and crew skill, an old BoP takes it out? That seemed like a screw you fans move. Like everyone was ready to move on the a new Enterprise. If anything they were right, the Enterprise E was the better ship in the movies considering FC. The A on the other hand never had the mystic the original had.

 

[Anwar]

Well, for the TOS Enterprise there was also the fact that up until WoK the ship never ever took visible damage like that. In TOS the ship was pretty much pristine all the time, so seeing it damaged and then destroyed like that was really an emotional blow.

The ENT-D though, we saw getting damaged all the time and destroyed in a few reset episodes as well so there wasn't so much of a punch there.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Especially including the part immediately after, when the door is coming down and severing the engineering conduit, that whole scene is certainly among the most brutal Trek scenes ever. I think it's supposed to remind one of sailors getting sealed off and drowning when an engine room floods on an ocean-going vessel.

 

[KirksStuntMan]

It's all Patrick Stewart's fault!!! He should have worn a toupee!!! Didn't they have the Hair Club for Men in the 23rd century?!?! The Captain of the Enterprise can't be bald headed!!!! After looking at the hairless dome for years on television and now on the big screen, I just can't take it any more!!! ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!

***Important TrekBBS Notice***
​

KirksStuntMan will be taking an extended vacation from this forum. He'll be staying in a nice soft room, with nice soft walls. He should return after his psychiatric therapy and medication take effect.

 

[22 Stars]

The TNG films fell into a pretty standard cookie cutter pattern. They ALL ended with older people fighting on scaffolding.

GEN - Picard/Kirk/Soran
FC - Picard/Borg Queen
INS - Picard/Ru'afo
NEM - Riker/Viceroy

There was no variation, at least FC had a great subplot about Zephram Cochrane. None of the films deviated from this bland, played out, low-rent formula.

The only part of Trek 09 that disappointed me was the choice to include a fistfight between Nero and Kirk. It's not necessary and it brings the film down. Imagine if Kirk had to fist fight Khan in II... it would not be held in as high regard.

 

[JarodRussell]

Huh, and there was no such thing in Trek 2009? Trek 2009 followed the very same formula of the TNG movies. Bad guy has doomsday device, and in the climax there are fist fights and shoot outs, and bad guy is stopped using violence.

 

[The Dominion]

The TNG films fell into a pretty standard cookie cutter pattern. They ALL ended with older people fighting on scaffolding.

GEN - Picard/Kirk/Soran
FC - Picard/Borg Queen
INS - Picard/Ru'afo
NEM - Riker/Viceroy

There was no variation, at least FC had a great subplot about Zephram Cochrane. None of the films deviated from this bland, played out, low-rent formula.

Trek 2009 followed the very same formula of the TNG movies. Bad guy has doomsday device, and in the climax there are fist fights and shoot outs, and bad guy is stopped using violence.

I agree with these statements.

TMP, III, and VI were all about the plots, II had balanced elements of being an action movie and being a good Trek, and IV was a comedy. And then V is at best laughably ridiculous, but still didn't screw up pre-established continuity as bad as Generations.

 

[22 Stars]

Huh, and there was no such thing in Trek 2009? Trek 2009 followed the very same formula of the TNG movies. Bad guy has doomsday device, and in the climax there are fist fights and shoot outs, and bad guy is stopped using violence.

Yeah, I hear ya about '09 but it did spend a lot more quality time exploring the characters than the TNG films for me. Kirk growing up vs. cooking eggs with Shatner. Spock rejecting the Vulcan Science Academy vs. Picard remembering he used to like to dance (badly).

While many movies have similar beats, what they choose to do with them makes a huge difference.

AND I might like to add that in '09, it was two, young, fit actors duking it out, not two older, non-action types fighting. That makes a HUGE difference to the regular audience, believe it.

 

[Noname Given]

Simple:

The people who wrote and produced the TOS films were feature film makers and scriptwriters to begin with.

The people who produced teh TNG films were TV episode production people and scriptwriters - and it showed (in a VERY bad way.)

With HD TV (and 16:9 framing and higer picture resolution); the line today is getting blurred; but when the TNG films were made - the distictopn was very clear.

Nemesis suffered from two things - John Logan being an AWFUL scriptwriter (yes, he made his feature film name with 'Gladiator'; BUT the script work he did for that film was HEAVILY reworked and rewritten before it was filmed - his name stayed per WGA rules); and Nenesis shows what John Logan is capable of on his own (and Brent Spiner being 'in' on the script didn't help.)

but in't the difference between having an actual feature film crew VS a TV episode production crew - the mindsets are VERY different.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Meh, I liked all 11 films. I judge them on an individual basis. Having said that, I prefer the first 6 because they were special. They brought back characters from a show and existed primarily because fans really wanted to see them. Each movie was a) an event and b) thought to be the last adventure. Because each one was thought to be the end (except TVH), there could be character development because there was no future continuity to consider.

When TUC was done, the publicized assumption was that "TOS films will end and when TNG finishes up, they'll slide into movies." No fan demand, no begging, letters, or anything. Just make movies 6 months after the 7 year old series finally petered out. Plus, nobody was saying "this movie is the last one." They were planning on making them over and over, so a certain status quo had to be maintained Also, finally, as it was said on this thread: there's was no "need" for them.

But, again, I like them all.

 

[barnaclelapse]

Meh, I liked all 11 films. I judge them on an individual basis. Having said that, I prefer the first 6 because they were special. They brought back characters from a show and existed primarily because fans really wanted to see them. Each movie was a) an event and b) thought to be the last adventure. Because each one was thought to be the end (except TVH), there could be character development because there was no future continuity to consider.

When TUC was done, the publicized assumption was that "TOS films will end and when TNG finishes up, they'll slide into movies." No fan demand, no begging, letters, or anything. Just make movies 6 months after the 7 year old series finally petered out. Plus, nobody was saying "this movie is the last one." They were planning on making them over and over, so a certain status quo had to be maintained Also, finally, as it was said on this thread: there's was no "need" for them.

But, again, I like them all.

I think you nailed my own thoughts beautifully. I liked them all, too, but those first six were indeed quite special. They were a critical part of my childhood. The original cast films came out of a very strong desire from fans to see those characters return. The TNG seemed to be largely an act of what Paramount probably perceived to be just common sense, the next logical step in that particular franchise. Doesn't mean they weren't good. They were just built differently, and for different reasons.

 

[RAMA]

Simple:

The people who wrote and produced the TOS films were feature film makers and scriptwriters to begin with.

The people who produced teh TNG films were TV episode production people and scriptwriters - and it showed (in a VERY bad way.)

With HD TV (and 16:9 framing and higer picture resolution); the line today is getting blurred; but when the TNG films were made - the distictopn was very clear.

Nemesis suffered from two things - John Logan being an AWFUL scriptwriter (yes, he made his feature film name with 'Gladiator'; BUT the script work he did for that film was HEAVILY reworked and rewritten before it was filmed - his name stayed per WGA rules); and Nenesis shows what John Logan is capable of on his own (and Brent Spiner being 'in' on the script didn't help.)

but in't the difference between having an actual feature film crew VS a TV episode production crew - the mindsets are VERY different.

Wrong.

The producers/writers/directors were all mainly from TV. This was because the studio thought they could manage the budget better. Bennet was mainly involved with TV productions. Meyer directed exactly ONE film before STII and wrote 5, including the classic: "Invasion ofthe Bee Girls".

 

[22 Stars]

Yeah, it wasn't that the filmmakers were from TV vs features, it was just talent for bringing character driven story to the big screen. TWOK was about more than Khan, it was about Kirk getting older and losing Spock ultimately. This started the trilogy of films that were at their core the story of this family. Sure they had the guest bad guy in Kruge in III but it was the Search for Spock and then Spock finds himself in IV.

IMHO they should have made the TNG films about the characters, how they evolve and change, live and die. Not just put the characters in episodic films where one has little bearing on the next.

 

[Anwar]

It's also easier to write for the TOS characters, because there's only 3 central characters (and those 3 are Freudian archetypes) and until the movies none of them went through any real character development. The movies were able to give them development.

The TNG chars were a big ensemble, and it's a bit harder to do a story that focuses on all of them equally.

 

[CoveTom]

^ It wasn't really that the writers found it difficult to do an ensemble story with the TNG cast. It's that they never tried. The studio believed their big draws for a feature film were Picard and Data, and the rest were treated basically like window dressing. No attempt was made to give any significant roles to the other members of the cast.

FC came the closest because it had a significant B-story working in tandem with the main A-story. And since Picard and Data were both involved in the A-story, it fell to characters like Riker, Troi, and LaForge to carry the B-story. It was still heavily Picard/Data weighted, and Crusher got virtually nothing to do, but it was the best effort at using the ensemble out of the four TNG films.

The Picard/Data show attitude is just mind-boggling as it ignores just about everything that made TNG successful as a TV series, but it does follow the standard Hollywood pattern of thinking "hey, we've got this enormously successful product, so we've got to change it."

 

[The Dominion]

Can Rick Berman see why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

 

[Therin of Andor]

The Picard/Data show attitude is just mind-boggling as it ignores just about everything that made TNG successful

Not so mind-boggling at all.

The first thing Robert Wise did after being signed to direct "In Thy Image" as a feature film was to ask, "Where is Spock?"

They then pursued Nimoy and offered him more and more until he agreed to participate. That elevated Nimoy from being Shatner's lower-paid co-star to getting a "favored nations" contract (comparable to the leading actor's perks and pay) and a settlement of a nasty, long-term, character-likeness approval dispute.

Both Stewart and Spiner (and their agents) played hard to get with their TNG movie contracts. Paramount could have risked going ahead without their two most popular stars. Or not. The rest of the cast were just happy, more or less, to get more work.

 

[CoveTom]

^ Thing is though, even with Nimoy's shiny new contract and his considerably increased star power, they didn't undermine the basics of what made Spock who he is. Yes, he went through some character development and changed, but the core of his character was not thrown out the window. Part of that has to do with Nimoy's concern over the character's integrity, and I'm sure part of it has to do with the writers and producers doing a good job.

But with the TNG movies, Picard and Data bear little resemblance to the same characters from the series. With Data, there's a but of an excuse each time -- the emotion chip in Generations, the Borg modifications in First Contact, the phaser damage in Insurrection, etc. -- but with Picard, it's just out of left field. Suddenly, the statesman-like, intellectual, accomplished diplomat of TNG is now an action hero.